Volume 10 Numbers 2/3

Spring/Summer 2001

Constitutional Watch
     A country-by-country update on constitutional politics in Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR

Slovenia - Following the October 2000 parliamentary elections, the legislature (Drzavni Zbor) continued to address various contentious issues, among them the demand by the opposition (mainly the Social Democratic Party [SDP] and New Slovenia [NS]) for a majority on two of parliament's supervisory committees -the committee supervising security and intelligence services and the committee controlling public spending. When the ruling coalition (which includes the Liberal Democratic Party [LDP], the United List of Social Democrats [ULSD], and the Slovenian People's Party + Christian Democratic Party [SPP + CDP]) refused to accede to this demand, opposition deputies, including Miha Brejc (SDP) who had been appointed deputy speaker of parliament, resigned from their leadership positions on February 1. Weeks later, on February 21, opposition deputies returned to their posts following the adoption of amendments to parliament's standing orders that will allow the opposition more control over the executive branch. The changes enable one-third of a parliamentary committee's members to ask the government and government bodies to provide information and documents relevant to the committee's work. The amended standing orders were adopted by 66 votes to 2. On March 21, Brejc was reelected deputy speaker by a 51 to 22 vote.

Although these changes seemed to resolve the tensions in parliament, which have continued since the elections last fall, media issues became rather fraught in recent months. On April 25, parliament adopted a Law on Media, an object of much controversy given the variety and complexity of the issues it deals with and the equally various opinions held by all those involved. Many criticized the legislation, claiming that it gave the government too much control over the state-run media and its programming.

According to the law, 3 percent of the revenue collected from television license fees must be allocated to regional, local, and student radio and television programs. The law also established the much-debated audiovisual media fund, which is to be financed chiefly from budgetary sources and will enable the state to provide support for the development of audiovisual productions. The legislation also regulates the protection of the Slovenian language, freedom of expression, and prohibits inciting inequality and intolerance. At least 20 percent of the broadcast content on television programs will have to be provided by domestic producers, while Slovenian music must amount to at least 10 percent of the daily programming of radio stations. Among other provisions, the law established a joint agency for telecommunications and broadcasting, with two separate councils. Public media outlets must seek the approval of their editorial staff before appointing a new editor-in-chief, who may not be a person who, by virtue of holding another public position, has legal immunity.

The new telecommunications law, in line with EU standards, regulates competition in the Slovenian telecommunications market, which already had been liberalized, in part, on January 1, 2001. The investments in the public telecommunications network made by individual investors and local communities in the past (prior to 1989) will be returned to them under the conditions set down in a special law to be adopted six months after the telecommunications law is implemented. The legislation also establishes that the refund of the past investments will be paid with part of the money from the privatization of Telekom Slovenia. The issue of investments had slowed down the adoption of the law after various individuals who had put money into the public telecommunications network filed an initiative to hold a referendum on the bill. The initiative was withdrawn once parliament had included, in a second reading of the bill, a provision regarding refunds.

In another media-related issue, on February 22, parliament failed to endorse Janez Cadez's reappointment to the position of managing director of Radio and Television Slovenia (RTVS). RTVS's Advisory Board must vote on a candidate, who then must be approved by parliament. Cadez's reappointment had infuriated journalists, since he had been accused of financial wrongdoings and even investigated by the Audit Court during his first term. In the vote, in which 51 deputies opposed Cadez's candidacy while just 14 supported it, only deputies from SPP + CDP supported Cadez, while those from the coalition consisting of LDP, ULSD, the Democratic Party of Pensioners (DPP), along with the opposition Party of Slovene Youth (PSY) and the Slovenian National Party (SNP) voted against him. The two largest opposition parties-SDP and NS-did not come out explicitly against Cadez; nonetheless, most of their deputies voted against him.

The Advisory Board tried again, weeks later. In that vote, however, no candidate managed to get the requisite number of votes. In a third attempt, on April 25, the RTVS council elected Aleks Stakul, who had actually come the closest in the second vote. Stakul was the former general assistant for economic issues at RTVS and an on-air economics commentator. If the vote had failed again, the journalists' union was threatening to call for the Advisory Board to step down and even, possibly, for a general strike.

In another highly controversial matter, despite obstruction by all the opposition parties (SDP, NS, SNP, and SYP) and a boycott by SPP + CDP, parliament, on April 19, adopted changes to the Law on Infertility Treatment by a vote of 43 to 2. The law, as amended, would enable all women-whether married or single-to undergo artificial insemination. The changes allow for the treatment of single women, while the Commission for Fertilization will grant rights for such treatment to women with normal reproductive abilities only in exceptional cases. This could be the case, for example, if a woman has reservations about sexual intercourse, has not had a partner for an extended period of time, or is unable to have sexual intercourse for other reasons. The law will also enable reproductive cells to be imported from abroad if there are not enough donors in Slovenia.

On April 26, a group of 34 deputies from all four opposition parties filed a request for a referendum on the amended law; two days earlier, a group of almost 2,000 citizens had filed an initiative to collect signatures to demand just such a referendum. A request for a referendum to question a law may be filed within 30 days after its adoption by a third of all deputies, the National Council, or 40,000 voters. The signatures of the latter may be sought once the parliamentary legal office has established that the initiative is in line with regulations and the office has set a deadline for the collection. On May 3, parliament set the referendum for June 18.

Opponents of the law cited the amendments' contravention of traditional values. Public-opinion polls showed the electorate largely divided on the issue, with 38.4 percent supporting the amendments and 50 percent opposing them. Supporters of the amendments argued that the existing law, without the amendments, was retrograde, considering that legislation adopted in 1977 had allowed artificial insemination for single women. The current law had been passed by Andre Bajuk's government in July 2000.

In the popular vote, on June 18, Slovenians rejected the amendments. Just 33 percent of the electorate turned out to vote. Of those who cast a ballot, 73.7 percent opposed the amendments, while only 25.04 percent were in favor.

On March 22, the Constitutional Court issued Decision U/I 416/98-38 that ruled certain provisions of the Law on Local Self-Government and a regulation of the Novo Mesto municipality unconstitutional. The case dealt with Rajko Sajnovic, a Roma man who wanted to run for a seat in Novo Mesto's municipal council in 1998. Article 39 of the local government law states that "In the regions where autochthonous Roma live, the Roma will have at least one representative in the municipal council." Slovenian law makes a distinction between "autochthonous" and "nonautochthonous" Roma. The first usage refers to Roma who have lived in Slovenia for more than a century, while the latter refers to those who have immigrated to the country more recently-mainly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo in the last few decades. Sajnovic had been informed that he was free to run for the local council, as any citizen would be, but that the municipality's regulations did not set aside seats for Roma. Sajnovic turned to the Constitutional Court, requesting that it review the Novo Mesto regulation.

In its decision, the Court ruled that Novo Mesto's regulation was unconstitutional. However, it went even further and declared Art. 39 of the Law on Local Self- Government unconstitutional, because, in the eyes of the Court, it set aside seats for Roma but did not provide concrete regulations as to how this might be implemented. The Court also ruled that it was unconstitutional to use the term "autochthonous" as long as there was no official definition of this term. The Court ruled, further, that the Novo Mesto regulation must be changed within six months and the local government law within one year. Roma organizations have long protested the distinction between the two groups of Roma, arguing that it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

back